Re: IDLE in transaction introspection

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Scott Mead <scottm(at)openscg(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Andrew Dunstan *EXTERN*" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IDLE in transaction introspection
Date: 2011-11-10 19:49:32
Message-ID: 12869.1320954572@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Well, we could use an optional "details" string for that. If not, we
> are still using the magic-string approach, which I thought we didn't
> like.

No, we're not using magic strings, we're using an enum --- maybe not an
officially declared enum type, but it's a column with a predetermined
set of possible values. It would be a magic string if it were still in
the "query" field and thus confusable with user-written queries.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-11-10 19:49:48 Re: const correctness
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-11-10 19:42:31 Re: const correctness